John Larson wants the president to seek approval on U.S. enforcement of a 'no-fly' zone. | AP Photos
Close

“Whose side are we on? This appears to be more of a civil war than some kind of a revolution. Who are protecting? Are we with the people that are supposedly opposed to [Qadhafi]? You think they have a lot of people with him? If he is deposed, who will we be dealing with? There are a lot of questions here from members.”

The unrest among Hill Democrat resembles, in part, the debates inside the White House, Pentagon and State Department over the last few weeks as the Libyan crisis has unfolded.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The White House has worked to put out a narrative over the last 48 hours portraying Obama as initially opposed to any involvement in a Libyan campaign, with a major change in the president’s viewpoint developing over the course of the last week as Qadhafi loyalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and a humanitarian crisis appeared inevitable.

While Defense Secretary Robert Gates led administration opponents of any U.S. role in the anti-Qadhafi operation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton backed calls from the French and British governments for a NATO-led effort to assist the Libyan rebels. The Clinton clique eventually prevailed in the debate, and Clinton then worked with U.S. allies to craft a U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the mission.

The Security Council then approved a resolution on Friday authorizing a “no-fly zone” for portions of Libya controlled by anti-Qadhafi rebels, as well as “all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country,” according to a U.N. statement.

With U.S. attacks already being launched, it was unclear what, if anything, Democratic opponents of the Libyan campaign could actually do to stop it. They could try to offer an amendment for under the 1973 War Powers Act, which would require a withdrawal of U.S. forces from any conflict within 60 days if the president lacks congressional approval, although it is unlikely that pass.

They could also seek to cut off funding for any extended military effort, although it is unclear how long or what the White House anticipates the cost of the operation could be.

Kucinich’s call to explore the impeachment question “got no support from anyone else on the call,” said another Democrat.

Yet there is growing unhappiness within Democratic ranks on Obama’s handling of the Afghanistan conflict, and with Obama gearing up for his 2012 reelection campaign, he will need the backing of liberal and progressive factions within his party — already disenchanted over some of the president’s fiscal and tax policies — in order to defeat any Republican challenger.

Recent opinion polls show the American public is also tiring of the Afghan war. On Thursday, 85 House Democrats — and eight Republicans — backed a Kucinich resolution calling for removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Dec. 31.

A total of 321 House members, including Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), opposed the Kucinich measure.

On the Senate side, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) offered a similar resolution, but so far, it has only garnered three cosponsors.

What is the mission in Libya? What are the American interests at stake in this engagement? What is the exit strategy? What are the projected financial costs? What spending cuts will be made to other programs to fund this engagement?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" Obama went on to say that the President could constitutionally deploy the military only "in instances of self-defense." Nobody is arguing -- nor can one rationally argue -- that the situation in Libya constitutes either an act of "self-defense" or the "stopping of an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

How, then, can Obama's 2007 position possibly be reconciled with his ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval -- which, of course, he has not yet done?

Democrats and the Left constantly argued the same thing during the Bush years: that Presidents lack the power to order military actions in non-emergency, non-self-defense situations without Congressional approval.

They even constantly claim that Bush's war on Iraq and Afghanistan were "illegal", depsite the fact of U.N. Resolution 1441 that authorized military action, and Public Law 107-243, which passed Congress by a large bi-partisan margin authorizing Bush to use military force.

Where's the Left on this Libyan issue? Quite. Silent. Nowhere to be found.

In fact --- many are cheerleading this little war as if Libya was part of Obama's NCAA brackets.

If we are going to lower our debt its not going to get done with this nickel an dime crap. Two billion a week spent on war. Put a two percent tax on war, two percent for each country we have combat troops on the ground.

If we did this the only ones who would still want war would be big oil. It seems they own both party's

CNN article ""Clinton came under intense criticism in 1998 by the GOP after he launched an attack on suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. Intelligence indicated bin Laden and his top associates were meeting at a training camp when U.S. missiles were fired at it, just weeks after al Qaeda terrorists bombed U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

The attack was launched on the same day Lewinsky, a former White House intern, wrapped up her testimony before a grand jury investigating whether Clinton lied under oath about their relationship or encouraged anyone else to do so.

"During that time when the attack was launched in Afghanistan and Sudan, there was a movie out called 'Wag the Dog,' " Cohen testified Tuesday. In the movie, an administration launched a fake war as a political ploy. "There were critics of the Clinton administration that attacked the president, saying this was an effort on his part to divert attention from his personal difficulties.""

Barawk the Chicken Hawk, has the lefties in a pickle. He is now fighting his third unfunded war and has no plan to win the peace. And as an added bonus, according to Politico, this was a quick about face from just last week. Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me. How will he and the lefties in the press spin this for him? What to do? What to do?